Update workflow step

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds a non-obvious consequence beyond that: editing a step in an enabled workflow affects contacts already partway through it, plus what is returned. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the semantics of the nested config/position objects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Bold-labeled sections (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when, Note) front-load the essential purpose and routing info with zero wasted prose. Every line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, side effects, and return value well. The remaining gap is the shape/meaning of the nested config and position payloads, which an agent must still infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% – only id and stepId are documented. The 'Use when' examples implicitly map to templateId and config ('swapping the template', 'fixing a condition'), but the nested config and position objects are unstructured and unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is partial rather than full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Change/Update) and resource (an existing step's configuration or position), and explicitly delimits it from the transition tools, which are its nearest workflow siblings. An agent can distinguish it from add/insert/delete_workflow_step and the transition tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit 'Not for' exclusion (changing step ordering is the transition tools) and concrete 'Use when' scenarios (adjusting a delay, swapping a template, fixing a condition). This is genuine when/when-not/alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.